@Lady now THAT is interesting

@Lady it almost feels like to me that eugen is finally allowing community building features but is trying to insist that ideally, what instance you’re on ought to be irrelevant. this is just a guess of course

i’m not sure how i feel about this, though i do think that allowing community building without requiring the skills for instance adiministration would be..... actually really good

@aescling which is hilarious because @Satsuma and i have been having conversations with people in fandom coders who are like “this is the way it should be” and all being like No You Don’t Understand Nobody On Mastodon Wants That

@Lady @Satsuma nobody here wants what exactly?

@aescling @Satsuma having instances be bland interchangable spaces with some community features layered on top as opposed to like, what darius describes in run your own social

@Lady @Satsuma i was going to say thst some people join for the One Big Fediverse and regard it as a serious design flaw that it does not work like that in practice, but then again, i have literally only seen that opinion held by people who do not use mastodon anyway. selection bias i guess

@Lady @Satsuma though mastodon the project sure does want people to look at the software in the One Big Fediverse kind of way

@Lady @Satsuma anyway if you have to have multiple independent instances run in a necessarily socially uncoordinated fashion then the best way to go about things is almost certainly to double down on all the interesting possibilites that entails. you have to deal with the fact that it simply cannot sustain a One Big Fediverse anyway

@aescling @Satsuma yeah i just think it is funny that the people who develop mastodon and the people who don’t use mastodon have the same ideas and it is not at all the same as the ideas of the people who actually use mastodon

@Lady @Satsuma it’s really something!

@aescling groups were originally a GNU social feature which used bangtags like !tea, i think working similar to how guppe groups operate now

mastodon staunchly refused to implement them

around the time when pleroma development was really kicking off i remember there were a lot of discussion about alternative ways of thinking of groups, but my understanding is that those discussions never went anywhere because there wasn’t good consensus on how they should be federated or administrated; i know @nightpool@cybre.space was involved in those discussions although i don’t know if they remember / want to say more

anyway this is very interesting because that blog post makes it sound like there is a Plan For Groups and i sure haven’t heard anything… is this being coordinated with other fediverse softwares? was there ever a consensus? am i just out of the loop?